Sold… until section 34 steps in

Section 34 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 plays a crucial role in South African property law, particularly in protecting creditors against fraudulent asset transfers.

This section requires that if a trader transfers a business, or the goods or assets of a business, outside the ordinary course of business, the intended transfer must be published in the Government Gazette and in two issues of an Afrikaans and two issues of an English newspaper circulating in the district in which that business is carried on, within a period not less than thirty days and not more than sixty days before the date of such transfer. If not properly advertised, the said transfer shall be void as against his creditors for a period of six months after such transfer and shall be void against the trustee of his estate, if his estate is sequestrated at any time within the said period.

In essence, Section 34 is designed to prevent business owners from quietly offloading assets to avoid paying debts. It provides transparency and ensures that creditors have a fair chance to act before assets disappear. This directly impacts property transactions involving business assets, making compliance critical in commercial deals.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s).

May 21, 2026
Fee or tax? The court decides

Fee or tax? The court decides

With effect from 1 July 2025, the City of Cape Town introduced three new charges on residential rate bills. These charges were challenged by the South African Property Owners’ Association (SAPOA) and AfriForum, who argued that they were unlawful and improperly calculated. The dispute culminated in court applications seeking declaratory orders that the charges were invalid because they were inconsistent with the Constitution, national legislation, and the City’s own By-Laws.

Pay first… maybe not

Pay first… maybe not

For decades, the South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) has relied on the “pay now, argue later” rule as a cornerstone of tax administration. This principle permits SARS to collect disputed taxes before the underlying dispute has been resolved, often placing significant financial strain on taxpayers. While the rule serves an important fiscal purpose, it also raises critical questions regarding fairness, proportionality, and the limits of administrative discretion.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest